Document: draft-ietf-enum-webft-01.txt
Reviewer: Michael A. Patton
Date: 1 september 2004 


Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
	should be fixed before publication.

Since I'm not an ENUM expert, it wasn't clear to me that this
registration actually satisfies the requirements of RFC3761.  So, I
went to look for discussion on the WG mailing list, but since they
can't be searched (or at least I couldn't figure out how to), the only
mention I could find was a copy of the IETF LC announcement.  If ENUM
did consider this and really had a consensus (which my info does not
show, but the fact that it got to the IESG seems to support :-), then
there is one important nit that must be fixed and two trivial
comments...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Body (section 2) mentions "RFC2619bis" without reference.  I believe
this is supposed to be a reference to "RFC3761 [3]".

Abstract has references.

Should be consistent between "ENUMservice" and "Enumservice".  In
RFC3761 (where it's defined) always uses the latter, except in
productions where all LC is used, while this draft uses the former,
except in the templates (which I expect it copied from RFC3761).  If
the document gets rev'd, I suggest being consistent with the existing
RFC.  On the other hand, I actually prefer the capitalization used in
this document as is, so I'm not going to argue too vociferously for
this.